LUCAS COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURTCASE DESIGNATION

TO: Bernie Quitter, Clerk

The following type of case is Pxtessional

Legal Malpractice (L)Medical Malpractice (M)

Product Liability Other Tort

LL

Workers' State Funded Self Insured (K)

Administrative Appeal

Commercial

CASE

JUDGE

G-4801-CI-0201802922-000Judg

MYRON C. DUHART

By submitting the complaint, signature of the Attorney, the Attorneyaffirms that the name of person withsettlement authority and his/phone number will be request to a party or counsel in

ther L_I Consumer Fraud (NT1Forfeiturer i Appropriation (P) n i M Other Civil (H)- F I C e r t i f i c a t e E l Copyright Infringement (W)

This case was previously dismissed pursuant to CIVIL RULE 41 and is to be Judge, the original Judge at the time of dismissal. Thepreviously filed case number was CI

This case is a civil forfeiture case with a criminal case currently pending. The pending is, assigned to Judge

This case is a Declaratory Judgment case with a personal injury or related case The pending case number is, a s s i g n e d to Judge

This case is to be reviewed for consolidation in accordance with Local Rule 5.02 as a related case. This designation sheet will be sent by the Clerk of Courts to the newly assigned Judge with the Judge who has the companion or related case with the lowest case number. The Judge receive the consolidated case may accept or deny consolidation of the case. Both Judges will designation sheet to indicate the action taken. I f the Judge with the lowest case number agrees to reassignment of the case by the Administration Judge shall be processed. I f there is a disagreement Judges regarding consolidation, the matter may be referred to the

Related/companion case number CI

Approve/

A t t o r n e y A d a m W. Loukx

Addre

Assigned

Date Approve/Deny D a t e

1 Government Ctr., Ste. 2250

Toledo, Ohio 43604

T e l e p h o n e 4 1 9 - 2 4 5 - 1 0 3 1

CITY OF TOLEDOOne Government Center, Toledo,

Plaintiff

VSTATE OF OHIOc/o Ohio Attorney 30 E. Broad St., Columbus,

Defendant

LuCAS

IN THE COURT OF C T. M M O , A I E r l . : LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO

E3ERNIE atk i l f t .OF

Judg

G-4801-C I -0201802922-000Judg

MYRON C. DUHART

PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT SEEKING DECLARATORYJUDGMENT,PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

For its complaint against the Defendant, Plaintiff City of Toledo ("City") hereby

follows:

Nature of

1. T h i s action involves the State of Ohio's ("State") unconstitutional enactment o f

S.B. 342 and its efforts to enforce parts of S.B. 342 that have been invalidated by courts through

economic coercion as part of Ohio's 2015-2017 budget bill (H.B. 64).

2. S . B . 342 improperly tried to regulate home-rule municipalities' use

traffic cameras. This Court, other Ohio trial and appellate courts, and the Ohio Supreme Court

ruled that various parts of S.B. 342 are

3. T h e Ohio General Assembly added a few paragraphs to the 2015 budget bill, H.B.

64 that purport to enforce S.B. 342. These paragraphs, added to the budget bill after

invalidated parts o f S.B. 342, sought to require local-government-fund payments to be cut to

municipalities who were not "fully compliant" with S.B. 342. These provisions will hereinafter

be referred to as the "penalty provisions." Because these improper penalty provisions were

buried deep within the State's biennial budget bill, the provisions were ultimately passed as part

of that bill.

4. O n April 27, 2015, this Court, in Case No. 2015-1828, permanently enjoined the

State from enforcing certain provisions of S.B. 342. O n October 7, 2015, this Court issued an

Order to enforce the permanent injunction and enjoined the State from taking any actions that

would reduce the City's local government funds for noncompliance with the provisions in H.B.

64. A Common Pleas Court in Montgomery County similarly enjoined the penalty provisions.

5. T h e State appealed the Order to enforce the permanent injunction to the Sixth

District, which affirmed the ruling. Upon information and belief, the State never appealed the

Montgomery County order and that order remains in effect in case no. 2015-cv-1457.

6. T h e State then appealed the Sixth District's decision to the Ohio Supreme Court,

which ruled that this Court lacked authority to enjoin the penalty provisions in H.B.

no action had been filed challenging its constitutionality and because no court had specifically

ruled it to be unconstitutional. T h e Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Sixth District Court o f

Appeals and dissolved the injunction.

7. T h i s action is brought seeking a declaration confirming that all parts o f

that would decrease local government funds t o municipalities f o r fai l ing t o fo l low the

unconstitutional provisions of S.B. 342 also are unconstitutional. T h e State cannot prohibit or

regulate municipalities from utilizing automated-traffic cameras and i t cannot

indirectly enforce unconstitutional laws b y withholding o r threatening t o withhold local

government funds i f the unconstitutional laws are not followed. Moreover, this

2

injunctive relief to preserve the status quo and stop the State from unconstitutionally infringing

on the City's home-

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

8. P l a i n t i f f is an Ohio municipal corporation that has enacted certain

pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Home Rule Amendment of the Ohio Constitution

for the health, safety, and welfare of

9. D e f e n d a n t State i s the statewide governmental body that passes legislation

through its General Assembly, which is then signed into law by its Governor.

10. T h e parties are both governmental entities o f and wi th in Ohio, therefore

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court. Venue in this Court is also proper pursuant to Ohio Civil

Rule 3(B)(1), (2), (3), and

Facts Common to All Claims for Relief

11. A u t o m a t e d traff ic photo enforcement programs ( the "Photo

Programs") are used in cities across Ohio and the rest of the United States to

and red-light violations, without requiring the physical presence of a law enforcement officer.

12. P h o t o Enforcement Programs have been shown to reduce injury and fatal motor

vehicle accidents

13. P r i o r t o December 2014, O h i o h a d n o t substantially interfered w i t h

municipalities' ability to operate Photo Enforcement Programs despite the introduction o f

proposed legislation from time to time that sought to ban or l imit municipal exercise

rule power in regards to photo-

14. T h e City Council unanimously passed Ordinance 125-99 providing for "Civi l

penalties for automated red light system violations" on March 16, 1999. ("Ordinance"). T h e

-3

Ordinance was approved and signed by the Mayor o f the City on March 21, 1999. T h e

Ordinance was codified as Section 313.12 of Toledo Municipal Code ("TMC § 313.12"). T M C

has been amended from time to time and presently also provides for photo enforcement

as well.

15. T h e stated purpose of the Ordinance was set forth as follows:

"WHEREAS, the frequency of red light running within the city of Toledocontinues to increase as the number of vehicles on our roads

WHEREAS, an automated red light camera system will assist the ToledoPolice Department by alleviating the necessity for conducting extensiveconventional traffic enforcement at heavily traveled, high risk an

WHEREAS, the adoption o f an automated red light camera system wi l lresult in a significant reduction in the number of red light violations accidents within the city of Toledo***"

16. T M C §313.12 provides for civil enforcement imposing monetary liability upon

the owner of a vehicle for the vehicle's failure to comply with traffic signals at

posted speed limits.

17. Pu rsuan t to TMC 313.12, the criminal justice system is not involved with the

City's Photo Enforcement Program, the offender is not issued a criminal traffic citation

police officer, the offender is not summoned to the traffic court in the Municipal

points are not assessed against the driver or owner's driving record by the Bureau o f Motor

Vehicles

18. U n d e r the Ordinance and the City Photo Enforcement Program, i f a

through a red light at an intersection or exceeds the posted speed limit, the owner of the vehicle

is issued a notice of liability. T h e notice of liability includes photographs o f the vehicle, the

vehicle's speed (if applicable), and the amount of the civil penalty.

4

19. I f the owner or the vehicle receiving a notice of liability wishes to challenge

her notice of liability, the owner may complete and mail a notice of appeal within 21 days

date listed on the notice of liability. I n such cases, an independent hearing officer

and conducts

20. Persons dissatisfied with the finding of the independent hearing officer may file

an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C.

21. I n fact, motor vehicle accidents resulting in injuries and/or deaths declined at

monitored intersections and roadways as a result of the City's photo

Moreover, after devices are installed, the Toledo Police Department has noticed

compliance with red light and speed laws at

22. O n December 18, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion

that, in Ohio "municipalities have Home Rule Authority under Article XVIII o f the Ohio

Constitution to impose civil liability on traffic violators through an administrative

system

23. T h e Court further held "that Ohio municipalities have Home Rule Authority to

establish administrative proceedings, including administrative hearings, related t o c iv i l

enforcement of traffic ordinances and that these administrative proceedings must

before offenders or the municipality can pursue judicial remedies." Walker v. City

Slip Op. 2014- Ohio - 5461 (Ohio Dec.

24. T h e decision in Walker v. City of Toledo reaffirmed the Court's prior holding in

Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 2008), where the Court answered the certified

question presented

An Ohio municipality does not exceed: its home rule authoritywhen it creates an automated system for enforcement of traffic

5

laws that imposes civil liability upon violators, provided that themunicipality does not alter statewide traffic

25. O n December 19, 2014, the Governor signed into law Amended Senate Bil l 342

("S.B 342"), which purported to add and revise provisions to the Ohio Revised Code related

exclusively to Photo

26. T h e City sued the State and the Attorney General seeking injunctive relief and a

declaration that S.B. 342 violates the Home Rule Amendment o f the Ohio Constitution. Th i s

Court granted the City's request and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing R.C. §§

4511.093(B)(1) and (3), 4511.095, 4511.096, 4511.097, 4511.098, 4511.099, 4511.0911(A) and

(B), and

27. I n Dayton v. State, the city o f Dayton also sued the State challenging the

constitutionality of all of S.B. 342. The trial court held that three provisions o f S.B. 342 were

unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against those provisions: R .C. § §

4511.093(B)(1) (the officer-present requirement), 4511.095 (the speeding-leeway provision) and

4511.0912 (the study and notice provisions). The State appealed and the Second District Court

of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. Dayton then appealed to the Ohio Supreme

Court, which reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the permanent injunction holding that

the three statutes were

28. Meanwh i l e , in Toledo, the State appealed this Court's ruling to the Sixth District

Court of Appeals, which affirmed the injunction against the sections enjoined by this Court. The

State appealed this decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which accepted the appeal but

proceedings pending the decision in Dayton v. State. Af te r the decision was reached, the Ohio

Supreme Court vacated the Sixth District's judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court

6

for application of Dayton v. State. The issues in the remand have been briefed and

in Case No.

29. W h i l e these lawsuits were proceeding, the General Assembly passed the 2015

2017 biennial budget known as H.B. 64, which became effective on June

30. H . B . 64 contained changes to three existing sections of the Ohio

which collectively served to penalize cities for using automated-traffic cameras that were not

fully compliant with the unconstitutional requirements of S.B. 342. The penalty

comprised of two new sections of the Ohio Revised Code (4511.0915 and 5747.502) and an

amendment to R.C.

31. Specifically, H.B. 64 amended R.C. § 5747.50 to require the tax

reduce local government funds to cities that are defined as

32. Addit ional ly, H.B. 64 created R.C. § 4511.0915 to require municipalities, which

operate automated-traffic cameras, to fi le a report o f noncompliance o r a

compliance with the State Auditor. The report is required when a local authority operated a

traffic camera "without fully complying with sections 4511.092 to 4511.0914 of

Code," and must include the amount of civil fines that was billed to violators under

R.C. § 4511.0915(A)(1). The statement of compliance is allowed to be submitted

municipality "...has fully complied with 4511.092 to 4511.0914 of the Revised Code...." R .C .

§ 4511.0915(A)

33. F i n a l l y, H.B. 6 4 created the definitions "delinquent

"noncompliant subdivision." I f a local authority does not fi le a report or

compliance, it is deemed a "delinquent subdivision." Delinquent subdivisions

any local government funds. R.C. § 5747.502(B)(1). On the other hand, i f a local

7

a report of noncompliance it is defined as a "noncompliant subdivision." The tax commissioner

shall "...reduce the amount o f each o f the next three local government fund payments the

noncompliant subdivision would otherwise receive under division (C) of section 5747.50

Revised Code in an amount equal to one-third o f the gross amount o f fines reported

noncompliant subdivision on the report filed for the calendar quarter." R.C. § 5747.502(C)(1)

In-other words, i f cities operate automated traffic cameras that do not "ful ly" comply with the

unconstitutional provisions o f S.B. 342, they lose local government funds in the amount o f

dollar-for-dollar billed automated-traffic-camera fines. L e s s than 100% o f

liabilities assessed are

34. D a y t o n filed a Motion for Order in Aid of Execution and to

Injunction in the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court The court granted the

enjoined the State from "taking any action that would result in a reduction of State funding to

Dayton as a result of Dayton's noncompliance with R.C. §§ 4511.093(B)(1), 4511.095 and

4511.0912. The State did not appeal

35. S i m i l a r l y, Toledo filed a motion to enforce judgment with this Court.

granted the motion on October 7, 2015 and ordered that the State "including all those acting in

concert with the State of Ohio, are hereby enjoined from taking any action that would result

reduction o f State funding to the C i ty o f Toledo as a result o f the C i t y o f Toledo's

noncompliance with R.C. Sections 4511.093(B)(1) and (3), 4511.095, and 4511.0912."

36. T h e Defendant appealed the order to the Sixth District, which affirmed

The Defendant then appealed the Sixth District's decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio

Supreme Court ruled that this Court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement o f the penalty

provisions because no court had specifically found them unconstitutional and because

8

had been filed challenging their constitutionality. Toledo v. State, Slip Opinion No.

2358. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the judgment o f the Sixth District and dissolved the

injunction issued by

37. To l e d o is compliant with all constitutional provisions of H.B. 64.

38. U n l e s s stayed, the State may claim that penalty provisions are effective despite

their inherent invalidity and attempt to further deprive Toledo o f local government funds to

which it is otherwise entitled pursuant to state budgets and the Ohio Constitution Article XII,

Section

39. A s a matter o f law, the following statutes are unconstitutional: R.C. § §

4511.093(B)(1) and (3), 4511.095, 4511.096, 4511.097, 4511.098, 4511.099, 4511.0911(A) and

(B), and

40.- T h e penalty provisions purport to require full compliance with the statutes listed

in the preceding paragraph, which are

Count I - Violation of Ohio

41. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set

42. Unconsti tut ional statutes are void ab initio. Therefore, R.C. §§ 4511.093(B)(1)

and (3), 4511.095, 4511.096, 4511.097, 4511.098, 4511.099, 4511.0911(A) and (B), and

4511.0912 are void

43. T h e penalty provisions reference and incorporate unconstitutional, vo id and

unenforceable statutes and, therefore, are unconstitutional, void and

Count I I - Violation of Ohio Constitution Home Rule Amendment

44. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set

9

45. S e c t i o n 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution provides that

authorized "to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their

limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict

laws" (the "Home Rule Amendment").

46. T h e penalty provisions within H.B. 64 violate the Home Rule Amendment

because they are not part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment, as required by

the Ohio Supreme Court in City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149

47. T o the contrary, the penalty provisions target a specific activity —the

automated-traffic camera in a manner that is inconsistent with S.B. 342. The

are not part of a general

48. T h e penalty provisions violate the Home Rule Amendment because they only

purport to limit the legislative power of municipal corporations to set forth police, sanitary, or

similar regulations, which was prohibited by the Ohio Supreme Court in City of Canton

95 Ohio St. 3d 149

49. T h e penalty provisions also violate the Home Rule Amendment because they do

not prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally, in violation of the Ohio Supreme Court's

ruling in City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St. 3d 149

50. T h e penalty provisions are only intended to circumscribe what

and cannot

51. T h e penalty provisions reduce local government funds by the amount o f fines

billed by automated-traffic cameras (instead of what is actually collected).

52. B e c a u s e the penalty provisions seek merely to limit the City's ability

home rule powers, they are unconstitutional.

- 10 -

Count II I — Violation of Ohio Constitution Home Rule Amendment (Self-Government)

53. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set

54. T h e penalty provisions impair the ability o f municipalities to exercise their

powers o f local self-government by penalizing cities that do not fol low the unconstitutional

procedures directed by

55. B e c a u s e the penalty provisions seek to l imit the City's ability to exercise all its

powers of local self-government, they are

Count IV — Violation of the Single-Subject Rule

56. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set

57. A r t i c l e II, Section 15 of the Ohio Constitution provides:

"No b i l l shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly

expressed in its title. No law shall be revived or amended unless the new

act contains the entire act revived, or the section or sections amended, and

the section or sections amended shall be repealed."

58. T h e additions of the penalty provisions to H.B. 64 violate the single-subject rule

and therefore are

Count V - Claim for

59. P l a i n t i f f re-alleges and incorporates herein each allegation set

60. I f not enjoined, the State's enforcement of the penalty provisions not only violate

the Home Rule Amendment, but will also cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff for which there is

no adequate remedy

61. A l l o w i n g the penalty provisions to apply to the City will require some or all

following:

• A re-deployment of police personnel resulting in no enhancement safety, health, and welfare of

• A n increase in financial burden as a result of the forced re-deployment ofpolice personnel;

A reduction or elimination of the City's Photo which will result in an increased risk of death and injury to and a reduction of revenues to

• A reduction in local government funds that are used to pay for publicsafety personnel

62. N o n e of the irreparable injury described above is recoverable from the State at

law so that there is no adequate remedy at law.

63. M o r e o v e r, the imposition o f injunctive relief will impose no burden upon the

State whatsoever where the State has allocated no resources to the City to pay for the

resulting from the penalty

64. T h e injunctive relief will serve the public interest by avoiding a waste o f police

resources that are to be used to protect the public and would avoid funding burdens on City

taxpayer

65. M o r e o v e r, injunctive relief will allow the City to serve the public interest by

continuing a program that reduces the costs, potential o f physical injury, and disruption to the

residents of the City caused by motor vehicle accidents and promotes compliance with traffic

laws

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant the following relief:

a. G r a n t Plaintiff a preliminary and permanent injunction preserving status

and prohibiting the Defendant from enforcing the penalty provisions or reducing

the Plaintiff s local government funds for noncompliance with S.B. 342;

b. D e c l a r e that the penalty provisions violate the Ohio Constitution in whole or in

part

- 12

c. G r a n t Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and/ r

Respec

mch, Law Director (0080004)Adam W. Louloc (0062158)Joseph McNamara (0076829)City of One Government Center, Suite 2250Toledo, Ohio 43604Telephone: (419)245-1020Facsimile: 419-245-1090adam.loulcx@toledo.oh.gojoe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov

PRAECIPE

To The Clerk:

Please serve the named Defendant with a copy of Summons and Complaint by certified

mail in accordance with the Civil Rules and the t T I i s Court.

Adam W. L

- 13 -